build_apk

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool builds an APK, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it overwrites files, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description is too minimal to inform the agent adequately about behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, adhering to best practices for conciseness in tool descriptions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of building an APK (a write operation with multiple parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and usage context, making it insufficient for the agent to fully understand how to invoke the tool correctly. The presence of an output schema mitigates some gaps but doesn't compensate for the missing guidance.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters (1 required), the description adds no meaning beyond what the input schema provides. It doesn't explain what 'project_dir', 'debug', 'force_all', or 'output_apk' mean in context, leaving the agent to rely solely on schema titles and types. This fails to compensate for the low coverage, resulting in poor parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Build') and the resource ('APK file from a decoded APKTool project'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'decode_apk' or 'clean_project' by focusing on the build phase. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'modify_resource_file' might be related but not directly comparable), keeping it from a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a decoded project from 'decode_apk'), exclusions, or comparisons to other tools like 'clean_project' for project setup. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.